Johnson v. Oak Creek Investments
- Edward Davila
- 5:18-cv-04645
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Johnson v. Oak Creek Investments, Judge Davila denied Johnson’s requests to reconsider a billing-information order or certify it for interlocutory review.
Scott Johnson and Oak Creek Investments. The order left in place the earlier requirement that Johnson provide Oak Creek Investments with billing information and denied Johnson’s requests for reconsideration and interlocutory review.
What happened
In Johnson v. Oak Creek Investments, the court had ordered Scott Johnson to provide Oak Creek Investments with billing information before the parties’ planned mediation. Johnson asked permission to seek reconsideration, arguing that a change in the governing law justified revisiting the order.
The court found that an amended court order still required plaintiffs to provide information supporting monetary demands for costs and attorney’s fees. It also found that Johnson had presented no new information and that the disclosure could be made consistently with attorney-client privilege by describing tasks at a high level.
The court denied Johnson’s request for permission to file a reconsideration motion and denied his request to certify the earlier order for interlocutory review. Judge Edward J. Davila issued the order.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Oak Creek Investments · No. 5:18-cv-04645
- Edward Davila
- Jan. 9, 2020
Background
On December 19, 2019, the court granted Oak Creek Investments’ request for administrative relief and ordered Scott Johnson to provide billing information by December 31, 2019, in preparation for the parties’ January 28, 2020 mediation. Johnson sought permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider that order. Alternatively, he asked the court to certify the order for interlocutory review, meaning review by an appeals court before the case was finished.
Reconsideration request
The court explained that reconsideration is available when there is a material difference in the facts or law, clear error or manifest injustice, or newly emerged material facts or a material change in law. Johnson argued that an amended version of General Order 56 changed the governing law.
The court compared the former and amended provisions. It concluded that the provisions were nearly identical because both required a plaintiff to promptly provide an itemization of costs and supporting documentation for a demand for attorney’s fees and costs. The court also stated that Johnson had not provided new information that it had not already considered when deciding that the billing disclosure could be consistent with California attorney-client privilege. The court therefore denied Johnson’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration.
Interlocutory-review request
The court also denied Johnson’s request to certify the December 2019 order for interlocutory review. It concluded that the order did not satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which requires a controlling legal question whose immediate review may materially advance the litigation’s ultimate termination.
Disposition
The court denied both requests: leave to file a motion for reconsideration and certification of the December 2019 order for interlocutory review.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.